If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.

— Antoine St. Exupery

Currently, NASA’s Mars science exploration budget is being decimated, we are not going back to the Moon, and plans for astronauts to visit Mars are delayed until the 2030s—on funding not yet allocated, overseen by a congress and president to be named later.

During the late 1950s through the early 1970s, every few weeks an article, cover story, or headline would extol the “city of tomorrow,” the “home of tomorrow,” the “transportation of tomorrow.” Despite such optimism, that period was one of the gloomiest in U.S. history, with a level of unrest not seen since the Civil War. The Cold War threatened total annihilation, a hot war killed a hundred servicemen each week, the civil rights movement played out in daily confrontations, and multiple assassinations and urban riots poisoned the landscape.

The only people doing much dreaming back then were scientists, engineers, and technologists. Their visions of tomorrow derive from their formal training as discoverers. And what inspired them was America’s bold and visible investment on the space frontier.

Exploration of the unknown might not strike everyone as a priority. Yet audacious visions have the power to alter mind-states—to change assumptions of what is possible. When a nation permits itself to dream big, those dreams pervade its citizens’ ambitions. They energize the electorate. During the Apollo era, you didn’t need government programs to convince people that doing science and engineering was good for the country. It was self-evident. And even those not formally trained in technical fields embraced what those fields meant for the collective national future.

For a while there, the United States led the world in nearly every metric of economic strength that mattered. Scientific and technological innovation is the engine of economic growth—a pattern that has been especially true since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. That’s the climate out of which the New York World’s Fair emerged, with its iconic Unisphere—displaying three rings—evoking the three orbits of John Glenn in his Mercury 7 capsule.

During this age of space exploration, any jobs that went overseas were the kind nobody wanted anyway. Those that stayed in this country were the consequence of persistent streams of innovation that could not be outsourced, because other nations could not compete at our level. In fact, most of the world’s nations stood awestruck by our accomplishments.

Let’s be honest with one anther. We went to the Moon because we were at war with the Soviet Union. To think otherwise is delusion, leading some to suppose the only reason we’re not on Mars already is the absence of visionary leaders, or of political will, or of money. No. When you perceive your security to be at risk, money flows like rivers to protect us.

But there exists another driver of great ambitions, almost as potent as war. That’s the promise of wealth. Fully funded missions to Mars and beyond, commanded by astronauts who, today, are in middle school, would reboot America’s capacity to innovate as no other force in society can. What matters here are not spin-offs (although I could list a few: Accurate affordable Lasik surgery, Scratch resistant lenses, Cordless power tools, Tempurfoam, Cochlear implants, the drive to miniaturize of electronics…) but cultural shifts in how the electorate views the role of science and technology in our daily lives.

As the 1970s drew to a close, we stopped advancing a space frontier. The “tomorrow” articles faded. And we spent the next several decades coasting on the innovations conceived by earlier dreamers. They knew that seemingly impossible things were possible—the older among them had enabled, and the younger among them had witnessed the Apollo voyages to the Moon—the greatest adventure there ever was. If all you do is coast, eventually you slow down, while others catch up and pass you by.

All these piecemeal symptoms that we see and feel—the nation is going broke, it’s mired in debt, we don’t have as many scientists, jobs are going overseas—are not isolated problems. They’re part of the absence of ambition that consumes you when you stop having dreams. Space is a multidimensional enterprise that taps the frontiers of many disciplines: biology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, geology, atmospherics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering. These classic subjects are the foundation of the STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and math—and they are all represented in the NASA portfolio.

Epic space adventures plant seeds of economic growth, because doing what’s never been done before is intellectually seductive (whether deemed practical or not), and innovation follows, just as day follows night. When you innovate, you lead the world, you keep your jobs, and concerns over tariffs and trade imbalances evaporate. The call for this adventure would echo loudly across society and down the educational pipeline.

At what cost? The spending portfolio of the United States currently allocates fifty times as much money to social programs and education than it does to NASA. The 2008 bank bailout of $750 billion was greater than all the money NASA had received in its half-century history; two years’ U.S. military spending exceeds it as well. Right now, NASA’s annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that—a penny on a dollar—we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow.

63 thoughts on “NASA”

The corporate attack on the government of the United States, fueled in large part by foreign investment, especially from oil rich countries, is probably the single most erosive element in all this. Big Oil wanted us to go to war for it, not for space or future development. Instead of the impetus forward there is now resistance…even to retaining infrastructure.

Before the 70’s we were a country of Men. Strong, smart and ambitious, Americans would take up any challenge with the tenacity of a champion. Into this golden age of discovery and wonder came the navel gazing Great Society types. The growing moocher class slowly changed the nature of Americans thus changing our aspirations from those of Men to those of Mice. It’s hard if not impossible to build rockets when you’re scrambling around a maze looking for free cheese.

But I guess that that doesn’t really matter to you, does it? 1950s, time of your life, right? (*laughing*)

Just out of curiosity, Nemo, were the people standing in bread lines during the Great Depression, “moochers”? (You were there, am I right?)

Also, just out of curiosity, did you ask yourself what Jesus would think about that comment of yours as you wrote it?

And, if you’re as interested in American exceptionalism as claim to be, did you ask yourself as you were writing it, why science, innovation and the idea of improving the nation’s infrastructure are now anathema to a Republican Party in thrall to Grover Norquist, intent on cutting government spending, including government-funded scientific research to the bone, intent on making government small enough to drown in a bathtub, and fixated on accomplishing nothing other than to make President Obama “a one-term President”? With a philosophy like that “back in the day”, we would never have gotten to the moon. And the reality is that “Great Society types” were the ones that actually got us there.

You want America to be great, again? Put Grover Norquist and his Republican Party henchman out to pasture, and get out of the way of President Obama and the Party that put us on the Moon.

Living in your “Leave It To Beaver” dreamworld, trying to relive the 1950s, just isn’t going to do it.

The problem with Nemo’s position is that he misidentifies the “moochers”. Right now the great horde of the “moocher class” are currently sitting in Goldman Sach’s offices and they devouring our tax money and returning nothing of value. They get people who hate government elected to run government so obviously great endeavors are impossible. If we want to go to Mars, we need to fund NASA and fund it now. My newborn son has a NASA shirt I bought him while in Florida for a union conference and I hope he goes on the first flight to Mars and that he does it on an American ship. That is why I vote Democrat

@Nemo – let’s look at your group: you deny the theory of evolution in favor of creationism nonsense; you deny global warning despite overwhelming evidence (no, it’s not weather); you complain about your lot in life by blaming everyone else; racists love your group; you’ve turned whining into an artform; you applaud when your fellow citizens are harmed to make political points; intolerance for anyone who isn’t like you makes you glow, though it’s written your deity wouldn’t be happy; you lie, cheat, and fornicate despite acting out behind your facade of piousness; and you’ re just not very nice.

You assume much, resulting in flawed conclusions. I was born in the 60’s, trained as an engineer (CS/ee) and own a medium sized business. My experience as a business owner coupled with an engineer’s subtlety compels me calls ’em as I sees ’em.

Tautological statements aside (one who mooches is a moocher), I’m not sure what Jesus would say about my past comments. I don’t think He would accuse me of lying, seeing that the statements are truthful. I don’t think he would pull a gun on me and empty my pockets either (as many Dems seem to think He would).

There are some things about a “Cleaverized” America that I would like to see, others I would not. It would be nice to return to a time where the assassination of Americans abroad without any due process was unthinkable. Of course you don’t have to go back 50 years for that. Assassination of Americans (without any due process) was unthinkable before January 21, 2009, just over 3 years ago. Being allowed to get some of the 400+ years supply of oil under our feet would be good too, having us serfs paying 8+ dollars a gallon, as the head of the current administration’s energy department wants, is not my cup of tea.

I could go on (it’s really the Democrats that are anti-science, most of the lefts screams in this area are projection), but I’ve got to get back to work.

Elevating Wall Street over Main Street has screwed this country, not that a wingnut like Nemo will ever budge from his wingnutty, “dirty hippee”/”welfare queen”/”Great Society types” illusion.

Talk about the ultimate parasitic class. Wall Street doesn’t make anything. They just take their cut. While they may “innovate”, their “innovations” are things like credit default swaps, an “innovation” which very nearly drove us into another Great Depression. And when they screw up, they get bailed out. As Paul correctly noted, if you’re looking for the real present day “moochers”, Nemo, they’re on Wall Street.

Well, Nemo, there you go. I think Paul and I have sorted out your confusion.

You’re welcome.

You might also want to stop smoking that wingnut ganja, a’ite?

P.S. Here’s your reading assignment, Nemo:

Spoiler alert! Guess where you find a REALLY high percentage of psychopaths?

[If you’re near a bookstore, you can just cut to the chase, and pick up a copy of, “Snakes In Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work”, by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare. Further spoiler alert! You probably won’t find many copies of this book on Wall Street.]

I agree with you that those that try to answer science questions with religion are fools as are those that try to refute God with science.

You are also correct in assuming that I don’t currently believe in Mann-made climate change. Leaving aside the politicalization of science, the corruption of data sets, the globe growing colder for the last 17 years and the utter failure of the AGW movement to make any predictions that have come true, the theory is not falsifiable. The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability. If the globe gets cooler we tweak the computer models and are told that this proves the theory. Same if the planet get hotter. Same if there is an increase in storm activity. Same if there is not. Same, well, you get the point. No experiment or analysis will disprove Mann Made Warming. It’s obvious that we are not talking science here, we are talking faith.
In the future, you would be wise not to discount anyone solely because they refuse to burn a goat on your alter. Also, the coin put into this government sponsored religion could be better spent on science (like missions to mars and the like).

I’m left to assume that you actually did have time to provide some evidence for the propositions that you just threw out there before bailing out because you had to “get back to work”.

And, I’m forced to conclude, as I am forced to conclude with all people that find a way to “yadda, yadda” their way around such things, that you’re less “evidence-driven” than my mechanical engineer father was, and certainly less so than you implied that you were.

Anyway, more in a minute. I just came back and discovered that you had returned unexpectedly. Ergo, just this comment on “process”. I’ll back with something substantive shortly. Hopefully, this time, you’ll respond in kind. Well, assuming you don’t have to get back to “work”, again.

Let your dad know I have much respect for him. I used to think that Mechanical was for people that could not cut Electrical. After surviving Statics and Dynamics I’ll admit to being very wrong. MEs are smart.

As for my work activities between the last posts, I guess you’ll want to see my time sheet? If I just send you the crispy fresh source code I wrote and complied, would that be good enough (haven’t filled out my time sheet yet)? Whatever.

I thought that my comments are just common knowledge and were presented as reminders. No? Fine…

The problem that you still have, though, is that your claim that it was the press of business that called you away originally, JUST when you were about to prove all of those propositions that you had just put on the table.

So, unfortunately, while you may have technically had “work” to do, it is clear that you are good enough at what you do that you could have taken A FEW extra minutes to prove those propositions.

“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability. If the globe gets cooler we tweak the computer models and are told that this proves the theory. Same if the planet get hotter. Same if there is an increase in storm activity. Same if there is not. Same, well, you get the point. No experiment or analysis will disprove Mann Made Warming. It’s obvious that we are not talking science here, we are talking faith.”

A couple things: Who are we? I’ve no doubt that some scientists tweak. Survival in the science world is based on proposals that get ink. Still, I find it amusing that people are so willing to discount 150+ years of pollution (Industrial Revolution era) and refuse to see the physical effects on the planet’s climate. For what? An opportunity to say no? I hope you are right, but I don’t think so and besides, isn’t it better to take some preemptive actions rather than waiting for the day when the climate is unsustainable — oops won’t cut it.

I agree with you that trying to refute God with science is batshit crazy. Why use science to refute something that refutes itself.

And I agree regarding the statement about tolerance. I am also intolerant. I’m intolerant of intolerant people. Is that an infinite loop? 🙂

Before responding we need to define a parameter. We are talking CO2 here. Not mercury, not dioxin, and not hot H2SO4 (described by my chemistry for engineers prof as “one mean somofabitch”). CO2. That being said, lets skip over the validity of the Mann Made GW theory and examine some of the “Preemptive Actions”, specifically some of the “Green Energy” garbage we’re currently paying for.

Ethanol: Despite what ADM might say (lie), you burn more energy making this stuff than you get from it.

Wind, Solar: For every kW of these boutique sources used, a kW of dependable energy has to be made. On windless nights we still need our power. Usually this involves building natural gas powered turbines. Enter the cruel second law of thermodynamics. When you first start your car on a cold January morning you get pretty crummy gas mileage until the car “warms up”. The “steady state” of you car can take several minutes to achieve. A gas turbine power plan can take several days to reach a steady state and maximum efficiency. Simply put, you end up burning more fuel in this start/stop foolishness than you would by just using the gas turbine alone.

And finally ,no. Being intolerant of intolerant people is not an infinite loop, it just means you are not tolerant of yourself. In general, it’s best to avoid universal qualifiers (ie: all people) and stick to existential ones (ie: most people). Unless you’re talking pols and perpetual motion machines, then go ahead and use “all”.

Nemo: “You assume much, resulting in flawed conclusions. I was born in the 60′s, trained as an engineer (CS/ee) and own a medium sized business. My experience as a business owner coupled with an engineer’s subtlety compels me calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.”

Zuma: So, you were born in the 60s, huh? Well, that explains your myopia/limited perspective.

Anyway, I loved how you conveniently skipped right over the whole “Wall Street is the new Moocher Street”/”Republicans and wingnuts detest innovation” stuff. Don’t have anything to say about that? One would think that you would since you couldn’t have become either a business owner or an engineer (blessed with great subtlety, of course) until the 1990s when Wall Street really starting losing its mind. What’s up with dat, homeboy? (*wink*)

Additionally, how exactly does your “experience as a business owner coupled with [whatever the hell you mean by] an engineer’s subtlety[, both of which purportedly] compel you to call ’em like you sees [sic] ’em”, coming as they did so very long after the 60s and the Great Society, render you qualified to render such lofty opinions on them or on things such as “navel gazing”?!

Part of the problem with wingnuts, dear Nemo, is that they don’t do enough of it. Self-reflection, and the kind of vision that comes from contemplation, are something in which the average wingnut is woefully deficient.

As someone who dropped a little acid back in day, and smoked a doobie or two, and who went on to a successful professional life as a lawyer, I can assure you that navel-gazing isn’t unimportant or unproductive.

[Given your disparagement of “navel gzing”, I see that I’m going to have to add the following to your reading list: (1) “The Tao of Physics”, by Fritjof Kapra, and (2) “Dancing Naked In The Mind Field”, by Kary Mullis (best known for winning the Nobel Prize in Biochemistry for discovering the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technique, a technique which helps amplify DNA sequencing, a discovery which he often stated wouldn’t have occurred but for a lot of “navel-gazing” and acid-dropping.]

Nemo: “Tautological [Whoa! BIG word! (*laughing*) Misused, BUT big!] statements aside (one who mooches is a moocher), I’m not sure what Jesus would say about my past comments. I don’t think He would accuse me of lying, seeing that the statements are truthful. I don’t think he would pull a gun on me and empty my pockets either (as many Dems seem to think He would).”

Zuma: Jesus (*wink*), what a load of crap! (*laughing*) Jesus might not call you a liar, but he would tell you that you’re attitude is f*cked up. That was my point, but you knew that, right? (*laughing*)

You know something, Nemo. I’ve probably got you by ten, fifteen years, but between the two of us, you’re the geezer. Damn, dude, when did your “innards”, your soul, not to mention your sense of Christian charity, petrify?

In any event, do me a favor, well, a couple of favors. (1) Identify the “tautological statements” which you so cavalierly glossed over, and (2) substantively grapple with the points that Paul and I made regarding the new generation “moocher” class on “Wall Street” (we’re talking about the financial industry wherever it happens to be) and the disastrous effect that it has on the American economy, an effect which has caused Republicans/wingnuts to clamor for cuts in government spending on everything, scientific research and technological innovation being somewhere at the top of the list (Global warming, green technologies? Bah, humbug. . .Innovation and energy efficient light bulbs? Damn them all to hell!)

Nemo: “There are some things about a ‘Cleaverized’ America that I would like to see. . .”

Zuma: Well, WHAT?!

Nemo: “. . .others I would not.”

Zuma: Interesting. What?

Nemo: “It would be nice to return to a time where the assassination of Americans abroad without any due process was unthinkable. Of course you don’t have to go back 50 years for that. Assassination of Americans (without any due process) was unthinkable before January 21, 2009, just over 3 years ago. Being allowed to get some of the 400+ years supply of oil under our feet would be good too, having us serfs paying 8+ dollars a gallon, as the head of the current administration’s energy department wants, is not my cup of tea.”

Zuma: Nice deflection.

Nemo: “I could go on (it’s really the Democrats that are anti-science, most of the lefts screams in this area are projection). . .”

Zuma: An interesting proposition, and pure bullsh*t. It would have been nice to see you PROVE it, but we both know you didn’t [Damn! IF only you hadn’t had to go back to work you WOULD have had time, right?. . .(*laughing*)], and can’t.

Zuma, just one note on Christian charity. I define Christian charity as giving ones own prayers, time and treasure to help others. It is not measuring your generosity by how much of another persons money you are willing to give. That’s closer to greed or, more accurately, larceny.

Look, the stuff you present I will admit is over my head. I like to write. Here, and fiction and poetry. Been published (I take more time on those pieces). Still, common sense dictates that the amount of junk breathed into our atmosphere and poured into our oceans is bound to make some sort of difference. You don’t reply to this so again I must ask if it’s wise to ignore this. I believe we do at our peril.

Regarding the whole green energy thing, one of the things that bothers me about what Nemo had to say about green technologies was his point that they are, as yet, inefficient, and that we should, accordingly, continue using technologies which rely on the “400 years plus” worth of “bubblin’ crude” that he says that we are sitting on, rather than innovate and render them efficient.

Damage to the planet be damned, he seems to say. What I don’t get is this. Shouldn’t we, for the sake of the environment, our economy and a future that will, at some point, find the fossil fuel supply exhausted, be working on making the alternative/green technologies more efficient, the way that everyone else, including, China, the largest petroleum-consuming country on the face of the planet, is?

As long as we keep suckling at the teat of the petroleum industry, aren’t we pretty much guaranteeing that we’ll be paying the $8 per gallon of gas about which Nemo is tripped out?

Congressional Democrats install energy-efficient light bulbs in the Capitol. Stephen Chu attempts to encourage Americans to innovate in the area of the development of energy-efficient lighting, and gets slammed by Republicans because the technology has yet to evolve to the point where it is cost-effective. Republicans take over the House of Representatives, and fall all over themselves, not to pass legislation pertaining to jobs, but to pass legislation intended to bring back the energy-inefficient incandescent bulb (not to mention, fixate endlessly on the female reproductive system, and how they can control it). Why? Because it’s a good idea? No, damn it! Because the gubmint shouldn’t be tellin’ us what to do, and, besides, God gave us the Earth to use and abuse, so it is asacrilege, a sacrilege, I tell you, to not use and abuse it, and damn the candy-ass, paganistic libs for suggesting that we try to do so.

It’s funny how Nemo agreed with you that God shouldn’t be allowed to overrule science in this kind of way because that is exactly what his compatriots on the Right, the Flat Earth crowd, are doing.

Still waiting, by the way, for Nemo to demonstrate, much less demonstrate conclusively, that Democrats are the REAL science deniers.

Other Side, you ask if it’s wise to ignore this. Ignore no, but acting prematurely is clearly not wise. Forcing immature, buggy, flawed and poorly thought out schemes on us to ward off some boogan is foolish at best.

Other Side and I don’t think that working on and innovating in new technologoies is “premature”. You do. Fair enough. So is the observation that your way of looking at things has a distinctly Luddite quality to it.

My dad, the engineer, used to rail against the environmentalists who had the temerity to stand in the way of housing construction projects he wanted to pursue up in the Sierras (California mountain range) because they would be harmful to the environment in any number of different ways. It was a different time, one in which they had a far more limited understanding of, not to mention far more limited concern for, such things. The sad thing here, the truly regrettable thing, is that you remind me of him and his generation, a generation or two later in time.

Time to wake up, Nemo. The solution isn’t to stick your head in the sand, stick with petroleum-based technologies just because we MAY have enough of it to last awhile, and condescendingly dismiss new/green technologies as “immature, buggy, flawed and poorly thought out schemes”, instead of devoting the time, energy and resources necessary to making them more efficient.and focusing our ability to innovate on that effort.

But “boogan” is already in that crowded dictionary, maning “hick.” “Boojum” is a Lewis Carroll neologism. The clear truth here is that even someone who is trying to be original should check his sources, like a scientist or something.

Tennis! I left work and played a set at Brown Deer High School. Be assured that I will respond to your comments, there was just so many of them. Let’s start with an easy one. You claimed that my use of Tautological was wrong. Perhaps if I specifically said as per definition 1 or 2 here:

But if you see Logic 3a (in the above link):
‘a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.” ‘

Or in my instance “A is A”.

“You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! In between is never argue logic with a programmer”

I would define “tautology” differently, as the needless repetition of an idea using different words.

In any event, I think that you’re getting lost in the weeds regarding the whole “tautology” thing.

You say a “moocher is a moocher”,while blaming our current state of affairs on “Great Society types” and “navel-gazers”. I suggested that the “moocher with consequences” label was best applied to Wall Street/bankers/the financial services industry.

You originally posited that a Great Society mentality has led to a regression in the strength and ambition of our country. I suggested in response that the blame lies elsewhere.

Tautology? I don’t think so.

That said, you never got around to addressing the “moocher” dichotomy that I put forth, much less rebutting it.

I’ve asked for you to get back to the “cultural” issues below. Hope you get around to doing that. although you seem generally “talkative” and “available” enough otherwise, I sincerely hope that “work” and/or “tennis elbow” don’t get in the way of your doing that.

As to arguing logic with a programmer?

“[Princess Bride 2]: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is never argue logic with a programmer! In between is remembering that the person patting you on the back so enthusiastically, and breathlessly saying, “Atta boy”, to you is you.”

“[Princess Bride 2]: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is never argue logic with a programmer! In between IS FAILING TO REMEMBERis that the person patting [Nemo] on the back so enthusiastically, and breathlessly saying, “Atta boy”, to [Nemo] is [Nemo].”

Rather than:

“[Princess Bride 2]: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is never argue logic with a programmer! In between IS REMEMBERING that the person patting [Nemo] on the back so enthusiastically, and breathlessly saying, “Atta boy”, to [Nemo] is [Nemo].”

Nemo – yes let’s look at the facts. By mandating the change in light bulbs it will advance the economy 12 billion a year. Why would u deny such a huge spark to the economy? Especially in a bill that has bi partisan and industry wide support?

Look, I’m really less interested in the environmental stuff, which I had intended to let you and Other Side go around in circles on, than I am in the “cultural stuff that our much earlier comments addressed.

How about going back to them, you know, the ones about the “Great Society types” and “navel-gazing”?

I’m interested in how such a “young” man came to be so “old” [in the head].

Honestly, Nemo, the vibe that I got about you from your “cultural” comments was this. You’re either wearing suspenders or your pants are just getting hitched up higher and higher with each passing year [think Jeff Altman, the comedian, while you ponder that].

Jeff Altman: “My dad’s pants kept creeping up on him. By 65, he was just pants and a head.”